"Drama" psychologically is a component of hysteria, both of which men and women do possess. Generally speaking women possess it more and there may be qualitative differences between men and women. This is a psychometric fact vis a vis the MMPI, even after the feminists messed with the test. The qualitative differences may or may not be supported by any psychometrics. That's my caveat.

I'm on the run again but will answer "dychty" and others posts when I have time.

One smart way to analyze female behavior is to not pay so much attention to what women say, but what they actually do. There does indeed seem to be an ENORMOUS gap between the two, often times bordering on being complete opposites. It isn't that women are liars exactly, its just that the seemingly logical words coming out of her mouth are ambivalent and emotionally driven, and the pure concepts that men erroneously extrapolate from them are not at all what she was actually saying. She was, in fact, just playing a game, as she always is. Women love players that are good at the game - those words were not chosen arbitrarily! In other words, players can speak their language.

This is why most all women are bisexual. While uninformed masculine men will interupt their emotional flow by pointing out logical inconsistencies in their speach, women understand that they aren't actually being serious (indeed they can't be), and so they easily play off, and with each other. This is why I went to university - to see sorority sisters makeout when their game playing naturally intensified at parties (only semi kidding).

Where was I...

So the real test of a woman's character is not what she says, which is almost never based in anything concrete, but what she does. And even then, all this boils down to detecting what her primary emotional addictions are, because they will never change. At least one of Elizabeth's addictions is playing the role of a victim still fighting the good fight (she could have some abuse history), which may even be understandable given this content, but is yet another reason why not to talk to women about women (the primary one of course being that logical talk at all is a complete waste of time).

The really profound thing is the difference in how women play women, and a masculine man plays women. For some background on this:

Aside from competition for social status (which is no small thing), two women playing games with each other really have no direction of their own. The type of games they play are induced by their surrounding environment - they can't choose their own, other than the subconscious direction to fulfill their primary addictions.

However, when it is a Man and a woman playing games, she is automatically taken over as nature directs her to one purpose: the baby. As the mating dance begins, the man's first instinct is to say Yes, while the woman's is to say No. She then subtly and subconsciously throws a barrage of tests at the man to find out if he qualifies as having good traits for her baby to carry, while at the same time employing manipulation techniques designed by nature to disarm his logic and emotionally attach to her long enough to raise the child. Trippy shit.

Unless you are privy to this knowledge, or you are bascially a freak of nature (the natural players), what universally happens when the mating dance advances is this: A woman will stay attracted to a man so long as he can play games with her, while at the same time not allowing her manipulation techniques to disarm his logic and become a supplicant. This, however, never happens because of a woman's infallable mechanism to "beta-ise the alpha male", as they say in the trade. Her manipulation will succeed, she will lose attraction, and she will seek another baby with a different partner.

Did you know? For 10% of people today, their real fathers are not who they think they are.

One of the major ways female ambivalence mindfucks guys into supplication and submission is through mixed frames. This helps facilitate the "conflict" addiction I meantioned earlier. By carefully sending mixed messages, she has the man confused by his extrapolation of her "logic", which basically equates to 0=1. But because the guy has become emotional from her irrationality, he gest invested and she wins.

[This ambivalence run deeply in her, for instance in order to truely love a man, she needs the tumultuous emotional fluctuations of "he loves me, he loves me not", and therefore "hates" to love him. (lol, reality is nuts).]

Feminine men will believe her mixed frames as truth. Moderately masculine men will know she's silly, but will still become emotional and addicted to her. Only the very masculine man can reverse the beta-ization process, because he alone has the logic necessary to direct his own mind. He recognizes her ambivalence for what it is - bullshit - and therefore does not take anything that comes out of her mouth seriously. SHE, OF, COURSE, IS NOT BEING SERIOUS HERSELF!

Armed with this knowledge and skill, a man can lead her into states and games that HE chooses, based on his own ethics and goals. This is something her female game playing friends can never do, as their games are always dictated by their environment. A man can actually fine tune his game to the extent of bascially controlling her mind with a remote control - no kidding. For example, he could say just a few words in a certain way so that she gets horny when he plans her to get horny, and can do the same to relax her, to frighten her, etc. - he chooses her state, because he can choose his own. It's not that the seducer thinks he's a king as an ego crutch to have enough confidence to get laid. Man as king is a fact of reality.

My belief is that men have an ethical duty with this knowledge. Women are not capable of true logical talk, and in fact talking to her logically makes you her ENEMY. We can either sit idly by and watch as they continue to rule the world, or we can take up our crown and rule our kingdom as it should be.

-skipair

ps - This is the tip of the iceberg. Check out the links in my old posts if you want to know more. Party time for me now :)

autism wrote:"Drama" psychologically is a component of hysteria, both of which men and women do possess. Generally speaking women possess it more and there may be qualitative differences between men and women. This is a psychometric fact vis a vis the MMPI, even after the feminists messed with the test. The qualitative differences may or may not be supported by any psychometrics. That's my caveat.

I'm on the run again but will answer "dychty" and others posts when I have time.

Tom

Drama is a consequence of interpersonal and group relations, something women in general just happen to care about more than men. Men are more likely to just shrug off conflict after a while and avoid contact with the conflicting party. Women are more likely to pursue the same contact, just because their perspective is more interpersonal generally speaking.

Notice that it wasn't always that way. Before women had all the social options they do today, they played second fiddle to men. Equal rights is actually forcing men to grow to regain their status as "big poppa."

DF, I'm not really addressing the social view of things, maybe autism would be more qualified to comment. The mechanisms I talk about have been around for thousands of years. This is what is genetically set in stone.

What sort of long-term vision do you have for humanity? Do you think as our consciousness continues to evolve that we should all adopt your manipulative seducing lifestyle to control women for our own sexual pleasure? Is that the future of our species? It sounds SO LUDICRIOUS to me...

You say it is a crime to treat women with logic, and that emotional manipulating is all they are suited for, but isnâ€™t this just a dishonest justification on your part? I know many women that have been used in the manner you describe, and when they realize that the man isnâ€™t staying for the long term, it causes them a lot of sorrowâ€¦

These types of women you speak of have the psyches of children, so what you are doing is similar to a child molester giving a child a bit of candy in order to keep her mind occupied long enough to steal her away to rape her. How are you different from this man?

Have you thought about the negative implications of this positive philosophy of yours?Because what you are proposing is a positive philosophy, it requires action in the world for a positive result. However, this type of philosophy always has negative affects. That is the rule of the cosmos.

So a sage has a philosophy that is entirely negative and destructive, therefore there are no negative affects.

And the most alarming part is that you think that you are in control, you think you are the one with power, this is quite the joke, when in essence, your are just as much controlled as she is. The controller is the controlled. Think about that for a minuteâ€¦ The controller is the controlled.

Youâ€™re lack of ethics is not something you should not be proudly bragging about on GF, especially among a group of thinkers that hold integrity as a very high value.

Frankly, I find your lack of concern for the female sex rather disconcerting; oh how the male sex drive can control men to make them do such dishonest things in the name of a little tiny bit of pleasure!

I think Skipair's enthusiam for applying and spreading this esoteric seducer knowledge is significantly virtuous. For instance, inevitably there will be men who don't feel they have what it takes to negate woman entirely. For these men, I think that, after experimenting, they should find themselves a partner and do the family thing or try to find some stability in a consistent relationship. A man should be the head of the household, he should be man enough to understand woman and not let her dominate and wreak havoc in the typical way that she does. When a man can't deal with his women confidently with a clear mind, due to ignorance about her psychology as well as his own, he becomes a slave to her irrational feminine wiles, rather than a master of them.

The survival of wisdom will be much more likely if we have guys like Rich Zubaty and Skipair trying to bring the power back over to men in regards to the family unit.

Children will be raised much healthier if they are raised by a father who understands his wife, and I think they will likely be more receptive to wisdom if they come from a family where the father is not an imbecile when it comes to women.

The survival of wisdom does not depend on men learning to seduce or dominate women. The overarching concern, wisdom's survival, fostered by Solway primarily, is a red herring. To begin with, wisdom does not need anything. And those who have wisdom know that the sacred thread of knowledge does not rely on ordinary people doing the semi-wise, relatively wise, or occasionally wise thing. Wisdom is for the few who exercise their potential for it. It is only for the sage to help awaken those few.

I think Skipair's enthusiam for applying and spreading this esoteric seducer knowledge is significantly virtuous. For instance, inevitably there will be men who don't feel they have what it takes to negate woman entirely. For these men, I think that, after experimenting, they should find themselves a partner and do the family thing or try to find some stability in a consistent relationship. A man should be the head of the household, he should be man enough to understand woman and not let her dominate and wreak havoc in the typical way that she does. When a man can't deal with his women confidently with a clear mind, due to ignorance about her psychology as well as her own, he becomes a slave to her irrational feminine wiles, rather than a master of them.

That is not his motivation though, his motivation is to simply use women for sexual gratification, and keep moving on to the next one. And the problem I have is that most women suffer as a result because they feel they are immoral for having sex with a man without some sort of long term emotional commitment. He even stated that he admires older men that are still able to seduce large numbers of younger women. It seems like a child-like fantasy to me.

And as far as your position, it would be fine except that men who aren't able to negate women entirely would still be quite miserable, attached and enslaved to the demands of a family lifestyle. That still seems like a waste of a life to me.

It would be better for these men to actually pursue polygamous women because they do not suffer or feel bad after having sex with many men, and they do not usually require as much emotional manipulation, and keeping a relationship with them is much less enslaving to the men, and causes much less suffering to the women after he leaves.

Here is an excerpt from Poison for the heart â€“ I wonder if Kevin still agrees â€“

PolygamyOne thing to be said for polygamy is that it gives a man more freedom - yes, freedom. A lone wife will feel she is entitled to the entirety of her husband's attention. His very closeness gives her a purchase on him. It is as though he presents her with a large surface area to which she can apply her glue - which bonds deathly tight. However, one wife among many will feel no such exclusivity. She will feel no ownership and will make few, if any demands on her husband.

Cory wrote:

The survival of wisdom will be much more likely if we have guys like Rich Zubaty and Skipair trying to bring the power back over to men in regards to the family unit.

Children will be raised much healthier if they are raised by a father who understands his wife, and I think they will likely be more receptive to wisdom if they come from a family where the father is not an imbecile when it comes to women.

But this is an argument of sacrifice, he should sacrifice a certain amount of psychological freedom for the well being of the children, but living with most women is not worth the constant bother just for the remote probability that the child he raises will be great. The individualâ€™s freedom seems to be more valuable than the sacrifice of parenthood.

Carl G wrote:The survival of wisdom does not depend on men learning to seduce or dominate women.

It certainly does not depend on it entirely, but I think it is a significant aid as long as the seducer knowledge is used by men who want stability in a family.

The overarching concern, wisdom's survival, fostered by Solway primarily, is a red herring. To begin with, wisdom does not need anything.

Doesn't wisdom require a mind?

And those who have wisdom know that the sacred thread of knowledge does not rely on ordinary people doing the semi-wise, relatively wise, or occasionally wise thing.

I never said anything about wisdom 'relying' completely on such.

There are degrees of ignorance. I think that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and countless other scientific thinkers in general, although arguably lacking in awareness to a significant degree, are helping create conditions where wisdom will more easily flourish. Also, I think there have been some very good artists who have created significantly edifying bodies of works, usually novels, films - even painting and music can be of aid.

Wisdom is for the few who exercise their potential for it.

Well, any one who is promoting an accurate view of why the female mind is different from the male mind is exercising the potential for wisdom. Skipair is open minded to this forum's values and I think that has a bit to do with his previous interests. The relationship wisdom has to his interest is not completely direct, but direct enough.

It is only for the sage to help awaken those few.

The sage helps awaken those who are ready to awaken. The factors that cause people to become 'ready' to awaken are pretty specific in my view.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:That is not his motivation though, his motivation is to simply use women for sexual gratification, and keep moving on to the next one.

That might be a problem, it depends. Based on the literature I read, it seems to be aimed at guys who want a girlfriend but want to establish respect, dominance, predictability and reliability. This may involve experimentation and courting, but almost everyone goes through that, it's a necessary evil. I do think the lifestyle of going out to a bar, getting a girl drunk, using some seduction techniques, screwing her, and never talking to her again is taking it too far, but I don't think most guys really want that. There will be some who do, but that's just life.

Ryan wrote:And the problem I have is that most women suffer as a result because they feel they are immoral for having sex with a man without some sort of long term emotional commitment.

Well, I think a big part of the seducer literature is to help guys establish a stable long term commitment, rather than getting dumped, cheated on, or dominated and made miserable by the woman.

Ryan wrote:He even stated that he admires older men that are still able to seduce large numbers of younger women. It seems like a child-like fantasy to me.

Yeah, it's a bit immature, but I think it's understandably so. He admires the skill and intelligence involved in being able to do that, I think most guys would. He admires the refinement, mastery and consciousness of such men, it's not a common thing, and anything belonging to only a minority of the most intelligent, is easily admirable/enviable.

Ryan wrote:And as far as your position, it would be fine except that men who aren't able to negate women entirely would still be quite miserable, attached and enslaved to the demands of a family lifestyle. That still seems like a waste of a life to me.

I don't think they would necessarily 'as a rule' experience more misery than someone devoting their life to wisdom. I think generally they would suffer less. The very foolish and the very wise suffer the most, because for them there is no balance. Those who can keep a balance, well, they keep a balance.

Ryan wrote:It would be better for these men to actually pursue polygamous women because they do not suffer or feel bad after having sex with many men, and they do not usually require as much emotional manipulation, and keeping a relationship with them is much less enslaving to the men, and causes much less suffering to the women after he leaves.

I agree, those types of women would be a good place to experiment and learn.

Ryan wrote:Here is an excerpt from Poison for the heart â€“ I wonder if Kevin still agrees â€“

PolygamyOne thing to be said for polygamy is that it gives a man more freedom - yes, freedom. A lone wife will feel she is entitled to the entirety of her husband's attention. His very closeness gives her a purchase on him. It is as though he presents her with a large surface area to which she can apply her glue - which bonds deathly tight. However, one wife among many will feel no such exclusivity. She will feel no ownership and will make few, if any demands on her husband.

Yes, that's insightful, but keep in mind, there is a price to pay for a culture based on such polygamy. That the Muslim culture produces such crazy radicals who are willing to kill themselves, is arguably very connected to there not being enough wives to go around for everyone, which causes some men to go crazy.

Ryan wrote:

Cory wrote:The survival of wisdom will be much more likely if we have guys like Rich Zubaty and Skipair trying to bring the power back over to men in regards to the family unit.

Children will be raised much healthier if they are raised by a father who understands his wife, and I think they will likely be more receptive to wisdom if they come from a family where the father is not an imbecile when it comes to women.

But this is an argument of sacrifice, he should sacrifice a certain amount of psychological freedom for the well being of the children, but living with most women is not worth the constant bother just for the remote probability that the child he raises will be great.

Some men like having a women companion and their drive to have children is strong. It's inevitable, and so we might as well make the most of it. You appreciate the perks of living with your mother don't you? As long as you have your woman under your control, living with her isn't generally so bad.

Ryan wrote:The individualâ€™s freedom seems to be more valuable than the sacrifice of parenthood.

I agree - but many men don't care about your conception of freedom. They find it appalling. All our present thinkers, scientists and philosophers that we see in the media, from Dennet to Dawkins to Harris, etc, these guys are not miserable and they have wives. They prefer to have wives.

Some men like having a women companion and their drive to have children is strong. It's inevitable, and so we might as well make the most of it. You appreciate the perks of living with your mother don't you? As long as you have your woman under your control, living with her isn't generally so bad.

Living with my mother isnâ€™t so bad because I donâ€™t have to maintain any sort of romantic relationship, or emotional connection of any sorts. The fact that she is my biological mother enables me to be what I am, and she doesnâ€™t expect anything more, but women who want life companions have a many expectations. Just keeping a woman under your control requires that you dedicate a huge amount of mental work and time to keep her satisfied. Essentially, you are controlled to a certain degree. The emotional demands of your typical wife would be way too much effort....

However, I understand your point pertaining to weaker men who need a family to feel complete, although if they are at GF, the uncompromising path of wisdom is what should be promoted, and if they can't live it, well they can't live it.

Moreover, there are also many other less dangerous options for these men as well - such as getting a dog, or living with an older divorced women as a room mate, or volunteering with a children's organization. These options are all superior than getting a wife and having kids in my option because they require less attachment, financial obligation, material duties, mind occupation, and neurological regressions related to strongly identifying with a child in an animal sense.

Some men like having a women companion and their drive to have children is strong. It's inevitable, and so we might as well make the most of it. You appreciate the perks of living with your mother don't you? As long as you have your woman under your control, living with her isn't generally so bad.

Living with my mother isnâ€™t so bad because I donâ€™t have to maintain any sort of romantic relationship, or emotional connection of any sorts. The fact that she is my biological mother enables me to be what I am, and she doesnâ€™t expect anything more

Ok, fair enough. I took a wrong step back there.

but women who expect life companions have a myriad of expectations. Just keeping a woman under your control requires that you dedicate a huge amount of mental work and time to keep her satisfied.

Right, I agree that to keep her under your control implies that you are being controlled. That's clear. However, it's the difference between making accurate predictions about her behavior VS. being rendered bewildered and emasculated by her dominance, her rebellion, her cheating, her rejection of you, etc.

Also, I think it's right for me to say that most men incorrigibly prefer being bound to a female companion over the enormous pain, stress and risk of devoting oneself to wisdom. For the men who prefer having female companions and kids, the world will be a whole lot better if these men are aware of masculine/feminine psychology and know how to keep their women relatively under control, rather than be controlled and beat down by unforeseen, bewildering female phenomena.

However, I understand your point pertaining to weaker men who need a family to feel complete, although if they are at GF, the uncompromising path of wisdom is what should be promoted, and if they can't live it, well they can't live it.

Ok, but I think that a wise person can see the value in something, the practical applications of it, but not promote it as the superior thing.

Moreover, there are also many other less dangerous options for these men as well - such as getting a dog, or living with an older divorced women as a room mate, or volunteering with a children's organization.

Yeah, but there are too many men who simply don't want that. They want a family. I think some unprecedentedly high quality children might emerge from family's where the father is well schooled in the female mind.

These options are all superior than getting a wife and having kids in my option because they require less attachment, financial obligation, material duties, mind occupation, and neurological regressions related to strongly identifying with a child in an animal sense.

Yes, for a man such as yourself, it is superior. Other's won't see it that way, inevitably.

Okay, we are speaking of the condition for wisdom. Yes, this would require a mind, although not necessarily an Earth human one.

If the Earth exploded and humanity was wiped out, would wisdom be extinguished?

If there were no other intelligent beings 'out there' - then yes, relative to the time period as well as the dimensions we exist in, it would. But that's hypothetical. In actuality, we really have no way of knowing what is out there.

What we can say for certain, is that wisdom and the potential for it, would be diminished.

First I'd like to say I'm not the best poster boy for this information. I'm not a good seducer, I'm not all that mature in a lot of respects, and I can understand the skepticism about my posts. That being said, regardless of whether being a seducer is wise by the standards of this forum, the information I'm sharing about female behavior is fact. It has been tested through and through millions of times, admitedly by a very small part of the male population. Most people don't believe in these mechanisms until they see them triggered with their own eyes. I would say the Disney Land fantasy of old fashioned romance is one of men's biggest vices, and I think a study of seduction, at the very least, is an excellent way to show how this fantasy is a LIE. It seriously wounded me to give up my love of whatever I thought women were while growing up, but I am a better person because of it. This is the ultimate reason why I'm taking the time to share this. Honestly, if this were all only about my lust, I could do without your competition. :)

Ryan, what you may not realize is that when these females tell you about their sorrows, they are LOVING the drama. And when they leave you and go out with their girlfriends right after they are chipper, giggling, and acting as if NOTHING bad had ever happened to them their whole lives. And after that they go directly back to the seducer she "hates" so much, fucks his brains out, tells him she has never loved anyone more in her entire life, and has unbelievable respect for him.

TRUTH.

It may sound harsh, but you are merely an emotional tampon for her so she can feel like she is an ATTRACTIVE girl with a DRAMATIC life. This I know from experience, having been on both ends of the deal.

Skipair, not all women are like this, especially when they get above a certain age. The women into this kind of drama attract men who are also into this kind of drama, yes, even if the men know what's going on, and are adept at pulling the strings. Do you want to be part of this game? Fine, then study up. Just know it is not the only game in town.

Carl G wrote:Skipair, not all women are like this, especially when they get above a certain age. The women into this kind of drama attract men who are also into this kind of drama, yes, even if the men know what's going on, and are adept at pulling the strings. Do you want to be part of this game? Fine, then study up. Just know it is not the only game in town.

I used to think the same way, but there are no exceptions to all women having these mechanisms. This is not to say their psychology is identical, and that high drama girls don't attract different guys than lower drama girls, as an example. But nature does not fuck around when it comes to making babies, and these are indeed universal principles. I guarantee that if you were to take the time to investigate my claims in the field you would agree. They are undeniable.

I don't really like this response because the reader may just see it as being "you're wrong", "no I'm right". I have invested a lot of time in this study, and sometimes I wonder how much experience the people have who disagree.

S: This is not to say their psychology is identical, and that high drama girls don't attract different guys than lower drama girls, as an example.

Carl: Exactly.

To be clear, to a seducer who knows the mating dance sequence, it does not matter if the girl is low or high drama. She may indeed attract a particular type of guy who is oblivious to seduction principles, but a seducer needs only to make slight alterations on the theme to lay her easily. It doesn't matter what the psychological makeup of a girl is, they all LOVE seducers. Shocking, but true.

S: But nature does not fuck around when it comes to making babies,

Carl: Which is why I said "not all women are like this, especially when they get above a certain age," (namely, the age of making babies). I take it you are a young man?

What I meant was that these buttons a man can push to quickly advance the mating dance sequence are in place for the sake of creating babies. It doesn't matter how old the woman is, or how close she is in her decision to have a baby, she cannot transcend her conditioning. There are countless field reports to prove this. Actually, older women with children are among the easiest for a seducer to lay. She is bored as hell with her husband.

Carl: But I do agree a man would be wise to arm himself with practical knowledge of the psychology you speak of, if he wishes to start a family -- and at the same time stay sane.

divine focus wrote:Drama is a consequence of interpersonal and group relations, something women in general just happen to care about more than men. Men are more likely to just shrug off conflict after a while and avoid contact with the conflicting party. Women are more likely to pursue the same contact, just because their perspective is more interpersonal generally speaking.

I would say it probably goes deeper than that, though you can easily see the manifestation in the social matrix. Female brains, for example, process information differently than male brains. When considering language, the active part of a male's brain is mostly the logical part, while in a female it is the logical and emotional. And as I've been saying it is likely this difference came into being as a tool for nature to propogate the species. It is a screening technique for finding mates.

Not only is a woman's emotionality attractive to the man who can take a break from his logic, but her emotionality also disarms his logic, making him emotional and attached long enough to make and care for a child.

Last edited by skipair on Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.